On 6/29/07, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/29/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyway, the idea is that starpacks should be supported because Zoran > > needs it, the Tcl file system API is ugly, and our coverage is spotty > > (static files work, ADP doesn't), so I'm suggesting that we drop most > > of the VFS calls and provide a separate implementation of static file > > and ADP file serving. > > > > Does this sound OK? > > I do not fully understand your suggestion, but if it means what I > suspect it does, then I think this is a bad idea. Namely, if you are > suggesting ripping out the tcl VFS interface in favor of a hack that > will allow running NS out of a starpack, I think this would be a step > backwards.
Well, what I'm suggesting is that the current situation is a bit of a hack and I'm proposing (what I think is) a better way to meet the goals. But just so I'm understanding where you're coming from, what is the purpose of using the Tcl VFS interface if not for running out of a starpack? (or other similar mechanisms). You seem to be saying that the Tcl VFS is good, but that starpacks are uninteresting, or am I getting this wrong? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ naviserver-devel mailing list naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
